Be Responsible.

I think this graphic speaks for itself.'s "Take a Stand" graphic, targeting (literally) 20 Democratic representatives. Image:

People who have no sensible agenda but to inflame vulnerable Americans — nor display any semblance of sense — deserve no place in leading this country, nor should they deserve a spotlight via which to tell people how they should think and act.

I think it’s a fair expectation of those who are elected to represent the individuals that comprise this country that they are responsible for their actions, and to make sure that their actions are responsible.

As if that’s not enough to convince you that someone slightly frustrated and light of mind just might take this movement the wrong way, how about this ad, run by Rep. Gifford’s opponent last year:


That’s more than simply irresponsible.  And it’s the type of inflammatory rhetoric that people need to think twice about before using when representing the public, especially in these volatile economic and political times.  And if, after careful consideration, they do decide to use this language after all, they’d better be prepared to take responsibility of and face the consequences of their actions.

We need our representatives and spokespeople to think before they speak, and to take responsibility for what they do and say.

Be responsible.


2 thoughts on “Be Responsible.

  1. You really can’t be serious. This is oversimplification of politics. Argue on the merits of ideas but sound bites are for those who really don’t want a discussion but want to shut up those they disagree with. John Adams tried the same thing to outlaw political speech he disagreed with. Read the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.


  2. Thanks for your comment, Ken; I respect your opinion and encourage discussion. I am indeed serious: In this context, I don’t believe this to be an issue of “free speech” but one of acceptable conduct and a reasonable expectation of responsibility for those who speak on behalf of their constituents. By choosing to go the route some folks have gone, they have also chosen deliberately to try and transcend the political arena in order to command the public in the direction of action they don’t (or shouldn’t) possess the ability to dictate. It may indeed now be the case that we’ve begun to see the unfortunate results and even some backlash against such choices, which I consider to be ill-advised on more levels than just common politics; see the use of the phrase “blood libel” in Mrs. Palin’s preemptive speech to that of Mr. Obama’s last night. Parallels are being drawn that are not only unethical but also historically inaccurate, and that carry implications far deeper than those attempting to be portrayed. You can’t tell me the phrase was not purposefully selected here (perhaps not by the speaker, who likely didn’t comprehend its implication, but by whomever devised the speech), and it was used in a manner that’s quite offensive to some. In this way, it’s quite different than simply shutting down an opponent’s ability to debate or respond to a verbal attack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s